Why? She called out two of her associates for how they questioned one of Trump's picks for judgeship. I don't know if it was good or bad that she did it though. But the claws for her are out because she met with Assad. You know ... the guy who dropped chemical weapons on his citizens and wasn't punished enough by Trump because he bombed empty buildings and didn't kill anyone. Gawd I wish I was joking about this.

"She must be stopped!!" -- The Democratic Powers That Be

up

23 users have voted.

—

The public has been conditioned over time—in ways that would make Pavlov’s dawg seem like an in independent thinker

Why? She called out two of her associates for how they questioned one of Trump's picks for judgeship. I don't know if it was good or bad that she did it though. But the claws for her are out because she met with Assad. You know ... the guy who dropped chemical weapons on his citizens and wasn't punished enough by Trump because he bombed empty buildings and didn't kill anyone. Gawd I wish I was joking about this.

about his membership in the Knights of Columbus. If you do some reading about this group you will find that they are not a benign charity group. They are another group that spends millions on lobbying government to stop abortion and deny gay rights. If he belongs to a country club that barred blacks, would it be OK to question him about that? Of course it would. This is the same thing.

For too long in this country we have allowed religion a pass on its underhanded dealings in our government because no one wants to cross the line of "disrespect for religious beliefs". If religion wants to play in the secular arena that is supposed to be our government, then we better damn well hold their feet to the fire of scrutiny and challenge.

#1.1 the potential judge about his association with a Catholic group. It was a ridiculous line of questioning.

What's next? Ban all Catholics from office?

up

16 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

As long as you claim to be Christian, walking the walk not required, you're protected from criticism. If you're Jewish, you're accepted by xtians because chosen people but pitied because you killed Jesus -- we just won't talk about it in mixed company. If you're Muslim, you're evil incarnate and need to gtfo because terrorism and sharia law. All the others like Hindu, Buddhist, etc, are tolerated but thought of as weird cult followers, like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.

about his membership in the Knights of Columbus. If you do some reading about this group you will find that they are not a benign charity group. They are another group that spends millions on lobbying government to stop abortion and deny gay rights. If he belongs to a country club that barred blacks, would it be OK to question him about that? Of course it would. This is the same thing.

For too long in this country we have allowed religion a pass on its underhanded dealings in our government because no one wants to cross the line of "disrespect for religious beliefs". If religion wants to play in the secular arena that is supposed to be our government, then we better damn well hold their feet to the fire of scrutiny and challenge.

a lot of questions about her and objections to her, but anyone who is military and anti-war, someone with enough courage to meet with Assad and question the Obama/Clinton death policy definitely has my interest. Big Al has raised very good reasons to doubt her in our discussions, but things are so bad, so hideous, I'm at least listening to any person who doesn't sound like a war monger bot.

@Linda Wood
If she is really anti war then I am very interested. Need to know where she lands on climate.

a lot of questions about her and objections to her, but anyone who is military and anti-war, someone with enough courage to meet with Assad and question the Obama/Clinton death policy definitely has my interest. Big Al has raised very good reasons to doubt her in our discussions, but things are so bad, so hideous, I'm at least listening to any person who doesn't sound like a war monger bot.

@Wink
As a critic of US interventionist policy, Tulsi is the perfect compliment to Bernie's strong domestic programs.
Where's Bernie going to get all that funding for his ambitious policies? Right at his side; tell 'em Tulsi. She voted nay twice on the bloated NDAA for 2019. Out of Syria. Out of Afghanistan.
Think of her as the anti-Cheney.

give him a broader appeal across ideological lines. The diehard partisan sheep aren't budging off the Third Way's choice. It is everyone in between that has to be convinced.

Bernie is going to run and has done everything but formally announced. They couldn’t wait to step all over it with the Intercept's second telling of the tale of the same someone got sexually harassed by the other same someone sometime during Bernie’s campaign three years ago. No matter how many candidates run, the party knives will be out more and bigger than ever for Bernie. The centrist neoliberals’ like Kos and his trolls hate, hate, hate him for daring to rock Clinton's boat.

I am so jaded, I have no faith any politician really means what they say.
If she "sounds" better than the rest of the field, I might roll out of bed and vote in a primary.
The days of me sending money, sticking up a sign in my yard, calling people...they are over.
No politician gets anything from me but a tap on a computer screen, if that. That is about the same they seem to give to me.

@on the cusp
then TPTB have already won.
Anti corporatists need small donors. Dont give up your power for change.

I am so jaded, I have no faith any politician really means what they say.
If she "sounds" better than the rest of the field, I might roll out of bed and vote in a primary.
The days of me sending money, sticking up a sign in my yard, calling people...they are over.
No politician gets anything from me but a tap on a computer screen, if that. That is about the same they seem to give to me.

Why aren't people talking about this? So not only is DHS running the elections, the DNC still has delegates and superdelegates investigation in the elections. Has anyone from the DNC renounced their saying that they could go in a back room and decide who they want to be their candidate?

This lawsuit against the DNC still hasn't started as far as I know and if it does before the primary starts what then?

Letting the delegates override the will of voters could see a repeat of the last primary where Bernie or some one like him wins, but that's not who they want to run.

Why aren't people talking about this? So not only is DHS running the elections, the DNC still has delegates and superdelegates investigation in the elections. Has anyone from the DNC renounced their saying that they could go in a back room and decide who they want to be their candidate?

This lawsuit against the DNC still hasn't started as far as I know and if it does before the primary starts what then?

Letting the delegates override the will of voters could see a repeat of the last primary where Bernie or some one like him wins, but that's not who they want to run.

up

17 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

Why aren't people talking about this? So not only is DHS running the elections, the DNC still has delegates and superdelegates investigation in the elections. Has anyone from the DNC renounced their saying that they could go in a back room and decide who they want to be their candidate?

This lawsuit against the DNC still hasn't started as far as I know and if it does before the primary starts what then?

Letting the delegates override the will of voters could see a repeat of the last primary where Bernie or some one like him wins, but that's not who they want to run.

And she did resign from the DNC in order to endorse Sanders. She did go to Syria and she did denounce what's going on there (along with a lot of other pointless war). I've been hoping she'd run. Now I need to research where she stands on Russiagate. Bernie is going to have a hard time gaining my support as long as he stands behind that monstrosity (or until he offers up some evidence to support his claims).

I am so jaded, I have no faith any politician really means what they say.
If she "sounds" better than the rest of the field, I might roll out of bed and vote in a primary.
The days of me sending money, sticking up a sign in my yard, calling people...they are over.
No politician gets anything from me but a tap on a computer screen, if that. That is about the same they seem to give to me.

up

24 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.

Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.

And she did resign from the DNC in order to endorse Sanders. She did go to Syria and she did denounce what's going on there (along with a lot of other pointless war). I've been hoping she'd run. Now I need to research where she stands on Russiagate. Bernie is going to have a hard time gaining my support as long as he stands behind that monstrosity (or until he offers up some evidence to support his claims).

@dkmich
that and more. And before people say he punk'ed out and sheepdipped, we'll Never know what happened behind the curtain. Did they show him the missing frames from zapruder? How Did he get that bashed head? Were there threats?
How would any of Us handled it? Think about it, how Much does Each One of Us have that We are Willing to Lose for an Ideal?
For ourselves, maybe not so much.
But to risk family, or friends lives is maybe asking a Little much of anybody.
ymmv

While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.

Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.

with a bat is ridiculous. Bernie stuck his neck out when no one else would. For that everyone owes him some loyalty. Tulsi is great. I could live with Warren. Both would make good VPs. If Bernie asks for my support, he comes first. Nothing would make the Kos assholes of the world happier than to have Bernie's base abandon him for a new darling of the left.

Obviously he has to continue to deserve the support, but so far, he's done nothing in my book that precludes it.

#4.2.1 that and more. And before people say he punk'ed out and sheepdipped, we'll Never know what happened behind the curtain. Did they show him the missing frames from zapruder? How Did he get that bashed head? Were there threats?
How would any of Us handled it? Think about it, how Much does Each One of Us have that We are Willing to Lose for an Ideal?
For ourselves, maybe not so much.
But to risk family, or friends lives is maybe asking a Little much of anybody.
ymmv

with a bat is ridiculous. Bernie stuck his neck out when no one else would. For that everyone owes him some loyalty. Tulsi is great. I could live with Warren. Both would make good VPs. If Bernie asks for my support, he comes first. Nothing would make the Kos assholes of the world happier than to have Bernie's base abandon him for a new darling of the left.

Obviously he has to continue to deserve the support, but so far, he's done nothing in my book that precludes it.

up

5 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.

Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.

And honestly I've been willing to roll with the "Russiagate" lies from Sanders up till now under the theory of political expedience. But that excuse ends if I'm considering him as President. I do not need or want another Obama and he's either going to tell us the truth about wars or he is not. I'm not one of the "Sanders is a sheepdog" crowd. The guy has a long track record of doing [mostly] good. But Russiagate = WW3. As lies go, that's sort of a whopper, no? It demands an explanation.

While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.

Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.

up

14 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

@SnappleBC@SnappleBC
I could (reluctantly) look past other foreign policy shortcomings, but this is the big one, along with it gives the DNC a pass for 2016. I don’t buy the “he was threatened” theory and I don’t accept he doesn’t know better. Everyone has that line, and pushing Russiagate was mine. It just seems inconsistent with everything else he supposedly stands for.

And honestly I've been willing to roll with the "Russiagate" lies from Sanders up till now under the theory of political expedience. But that excuse ends if I'm considering him as President. I do not need or want another Obama and he's either going to tell us the truth about wars or he is not. I'm not one of the "Sanders is a sheepdog" crowd. The guy has a long track record of doing [mostly] good. But Russiagate = WW3. As lies go, that's sort of a whopper, no? It demands an explanation.

However, his voting in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem told me he's on the AIPAC dole or at least does Israel's bidding, despite what he says about war. No doubt in my mind he'll vote in favor of cutting our 1st Amendment wings and outlaw BDS. He's an Israeli tool like the rest of them.

Who's to say Israel isn't behind Russiagate? They invented paid troll farms, long before Brock was doing it. Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.

I gave up on Bernie when he lost his spine. Russiagate is just more of his spinelessness. A yes vote on the embassy move told me who he works for, and a vote outlawing BDS will only solidify my conclusion that he, and everyone else who votes the same, are on the Israeli dole.

#4.2.1.3#4.2.1.3 I could (reluctantly) look past other foreign policy shortcomings, but this is the big one, along with it gives the DNC a pass for 2016. I don’t buy the “he was threatened” theory and I don’t accept he doesn’t know better. Everyone has that line, and pushing Russiagate was mine. It just seems inconsistent with everything else he supposedly stands for.

Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.

However, his voting in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem told me he's on the AIPAC dole or at least does Israel's bidding, despite what he says about war. No doubt in my mind he'll vote in favor of cutting our 1st Amendment wings and outlaw BDS. He's an Israeli tool like the rest of them.

Who's to say Israel isn't behind Russiagate? They invented paid troll farms, long before Brock was doing it. Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.

I gave up on Bernie when he lost his spine. Russiagate is just more of his spinelessness. A yes vote on the embassy move told me who he works for, and a vote outlawing BDS will only solidify my conclusion that he, and everyone else who votes the same, are on the Israeli dole.

up

4 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

@Deja
been 4 or 5 years since the flying monkeys woke me up as to what dKos really is - an operation not a website... I prefer Tulsi over anyone else and I sure would like to see her get some exposure before MSNBC / Hilary mob does its character assassination gig on Tulsi.

However, his voting in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem told me he's on the AIPAC dole or at least does Israel's bidding, despite what he says about war. No doubt in my mind he'll vote in favor of cutting our 1st Amendment wings and outlaw BDS. He's an Israeli tool like the rest of them.

Who's to say Israel isn't behind Russiagate? They invented paid troll farms, long before Brock was doing it. Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.

I gave up on Bernie when he lost his spine. Russiagate is just more of his spinelessness. A yes vote on the embassy move told me who he works for, and a vote outlawing BDS will only solidify my conclusion that he, and everyone else who votes the same, are on the Israeli dole.

up

2 users have voted.

—

"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN

@SnappleBC
Hard to find much of late - she needs to be confronted about that.

In October 2017, she tweeted herself into a firestorm of dissatisfaction from her followers when she mildly went along with the "division" meme of Russia-gate, then seems to have retreated on further comment. I'm hoping she takes comments from her followers seriously. She did serve in the military (medical corp), and now takes strong stands against the interventionism she once peripherally participated in.

I found a New Yorker article that mentioned how some "resist" faction, following a visit to her congressional office were "expressing ambivalence" because they "wanted a more vigorous congressional investigation into Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign" from her - and apparently not getting that. Maybe the twitter firestorm sunk in?

And she did resign from the DNC in order to endorse Sanders. She did go to Syria and she did denounce what's going on there (along with a lot of other pointless war). I've been hoping she'd run. Now I need to research where she stands on Russiagate. Bernie is going to have a hard time gaining my support as long as he stands behind that monstrosity (or until he offers up some evidence to support his claims).

It's sparse and I need a much more direct answer before she'd get my support. I need that same answer from ANYONE who's going to get my support. The question is simple.

Do you believe that the Russian Government tried to influence the US elections via the company Internet Research Association? If so, what proof can you show the American public that justifies the a new cold war and the run-up to WW3?

I want clear and unambiguous answers. War with Russia is simply not something I'm willing to take lightly.

#4.2
Hard to find much of late - she needs to be confronted about that.

In October 2017, she tweeted herself into a firestorm of dissatisfaction from her followers when she mildly went along with the "division" meme of Russia-gate, then seems to have retreated on further comment. I'm hoping she takes comments from her followers seriously. She did serve in the military (medical corp), and now takes strong stands against the interventionism she once peripherally participated in.

I found a New Yorker article that mentioned how some "resist" faction, following a visit to her congressional office were "expressing ambivalence" because they "wanted a more vigorous congressional investigation into Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign" from her - and apparently not getting that. Maybe the twitter firestorm sunk in?

up

4 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

She has that populist appeal that Bernie has, is a very good speaker, is young, a woman, was in the military, and can connect to folks. We'll see how she navigates the attempts to shut her down.

Yes, she likes Israel too much. Yes, there are a couple other minor points against her.

But on the main topics, she's golden. Anti-war. For raised minimum wage, forgiveness of student debt, for more infrastructure spending at home, against global trade deals, for restoration of Glass-Steagall, for legal pot, was there (for a short bit) at Standing Rock, and has a really good environmental record.

For those who may not have seen her speak, here is the youtube clip of her nominating Bernie at the Democratic Convention in 2016:

@apenultimate
for 5 minutes, which in my rural town is par.
If she remains cozy with Israel, if she can justify apartheid, I can't tap the screen.

She has that populist appeal that Bernie has, is a very good speaker, is young, a woman, was in the military, and can connect to folks. We'll see how she navigates the attempts to shut her down.

Yes, she likes Israel too much. Yes, there are a couple other minor points against her.

But on the main topics, she's golden. Anti-war. For raised minimum wage, forgiveness of student debt, for more infrastructure spending at home, against global trade deals, for restoration of Glass-Steagall, for legal pot, was there (for a short bit) at Standing Rock, and has a really good environmental record.

For those who may not have seen her speak, here is the youtube clip of her nominating Bernie at the Democratic Convention in 2016:

If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.

I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.

I don’t see those as small things.

She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.

But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.

Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?

Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.

She has that populist appeal that Bernie has, is a very good speaker, is young, a woman, was in the military, and can connect to folks. We'll see how she navigates the attempts to shut her down.

Yes, she likes Israel too much. Yes, there are a couple other minor points against her.

But on the main topics, she's golden. Anti-war. For raised minimum wage, forgiveness of student debt, for more infrastructure spending at home, against global trade deals, for restoration of Glass-Steagall, for legal pot, was there (for a short bit) at Standing Rock, and has a really good environmental record.

For those who may not have seen her speak, here is the youtube clip of her nominating Bernie at the Democratic Convention in 2016:

If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.

I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.

I don’t see those as small things.

She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.

But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.

Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?

Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.

@CS in AZ
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.

I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,

Result - Trump's second term.
@doh1304
40+% of American voters are Trump idolators. Split the anti-Trump vote and he wins again.

#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.

I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,

up

8 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

As I said, my interest is the facts and truth, about all candidates and politicians. I don’t like seeing someone labeled antiwar who really is not. That is all.

#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.

I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,

as all the other candidates spill their promises and once the field is whittled down she is going to jump in.

Bottom line for me is no one who doesn't come out and say how damaging our foreign policies have been and how they have made it so that we the people and what we want are secondary to the military then they don't get my vote. This includes how much they bow down to Israel. I can't wait to see who votes for the anti BDS bill that McConnell is bringing up a third time. Anyone who votes for that is putting Israel before American's first amendment right and they need to get voted out of congress. I can't believe that this is even being voted on.

#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.

I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,

up

25 users have voted.

—

The public has been conditioned over time—in ways that would make Pavlov’s dawg seem like an in independent thinker

An American is voting on the BDS bill. I never understood what fascism meant until the blinders of what our government is capable of were finally ripped off. And I don't even say that in a hyperbolic fashion. Fascism in our country has merely revealed itself when private corporations and industries hijacked the government making their interests supersede the interest of the public. The BDS Bill is but one example.

as all the other candidates spill their promises and once the field is whittled down she is going to jump in.

Bottom line for me is no one who doesn't come out and say how damaging our foreign policies have been and how they have made it so that we the people and what we want are secondary to the military then they don't get my vote. This includes how much they bow down to Israel. I can't wait to see who votes for the anti BDS bill that McConnell is bringing up a third time. Anyone who votes for that is putting Israel before American's first amendment right and they need to get voted out of congress. I can't believe that this is even being voted on.

up

20 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

with Israel. And when they do Israel's bidding and sends our troops into harm's way not to protect the country, but to make Israel the only superpower in the Middle East that has nukes then they need to decide which country they want to live in. Our military engagements aren't the only thing they do for Israel. Look at how they protect Israel from being brought up on crimes against humanity for what they do to the Palestinians. And gawd knows what else they do for it.

I can't wait to see what Trump's base does when he signs the legislation that puts Israel's rights before theirs.

An American is voting on the BDS bill. I never understood what fascism meant until the blinders of what our government is capable of were finally ripped off. And I don't even say that in a hyperbolic fashion. Fascism in our country has merely revealed itself when private corporations and industries hijacked the government making their interests supersede the interest of the public. The BDS Bill is but one example.

up

15 users have voted.

—

The public has been conditioned over time—in ways that would make Pavlov’s dawg seem like an in independent thinker

with Israel. And when they do Israel's bidding and sends our troops into harm's way not to protect the country, but to make Israel the only superpower in the Middle East that has nukes then they need to decide which country they want to live in. Our military engagements aren't the only thing they do for Israel. Look at how they protect Israel from being brought up on crimes against humanity for what they do to the Palestinians. And gawd knows what else they do for it.

I can't wait to see what Trump's base does when he signs the legislation that puts Israel's rights before theirs.

@OzoneTom
Yeah, considering how heads explode when people don't stand for a damn song, and tell them to gtfo of this country if they don't want to stand, you're probably right.

They don't see protest as a right even though they actually pay for products in order to video themselves blowing up said products in order to appear patriotic.

Plus, you know, end times, Armageddon, all the fun stuff their preachers have been talking about all their lives. Some think they can make it happen and they'll be whisked off to heaven faster that way. (Shouldn't that be considered suicide which they also believe is the only unforgivable sin since you can't say oopsie, sorry, which is all it takes to have all bad things you do cleaned away from your responsibility?)

Jill Stein sued, demanding recounts in the 2016 presidential election. As settlement of the lawsuit, the state of Pennsylvania agreed to begin using paper ballots. The DNC sued Russia and Wikileaks, fomenting a new cold war and threatening the freedom of the press.

#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.

I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,

Jill Stein sued, demanding recounts in the 2016 presidential election. As settlement of the lawsuit, the state of Pennsylvania agreed to begin using paper ballots. The DNC sued Russia and Wikileaks, fomenting a new cold war and threatening the freedom of the press.

up

1 user has voted.

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

"
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good."

No offense, but for me writing that is such empty utter bullshit. We have been down that road already. This trype was used at dk against anyone who criticized Obama or Clinton.

If TG or Bernie or Warren don't oppose the wars and Jill Stein runs, I will vote for her again.

#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.

I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,

up

10 users have voted.

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

@divineorder
this is what makes me scratch my head.
So, someone calls you out for purity testing.
What does that make that person?
Someone who has no problem with flaws/impurities? A supporter of impurities?
And that is a positive position?
Ok. Which flaws are acceptable?
Please list them, and state why the flaws do not matter, please. Obviously, some flaws are acceptable. Which ones, and why?
Convince this purity voter that my morals, my life experiences, my ethics, need to be ignored or compromised because [insert the forgivable flaws list here].
Anyway, I have strong beliefs about right and wrong. If a candidate crosses them, I just can't vote for them.
Good for you.

#5.2.1.1.1.5 this is what makes me scratch my head.
So, someone calls you out for purity testing.
What does that make that person?
Someone who has no problem with flaws/impurities? A supporter of impurities?
And that is a positive position?
Ok. Which flaws are acceptable?
Please list them, and state why the flaws do not matter, please. Obviously, some flaws are acceptable. Which ones, and why?
Convince this purity voter that my morals, my life experiences, my ethics, need to be ignored or compromised because [insert the forgivable flaws list here].
Anyway, I have strong beliefs about right and wrong. If a candidate crosses them, I just can't vote for them.
Good for you.

As I noted with Hillary, at some point, the lesser of two evils becomes too evil for me to endorse. That point is clearly "war criminal". I know that Gabbard has a pretty strong anti-war stance. But it's a genuine conundrum when laid against a coziness with Israel.

And for me, the whole Russiagate thing is also simply too evil to endorse. The stakes on that one are... you know... global thermonuclear war. Someone who presses the Russiagate argument had better be prepared to show me hard evidence or else I lump them into the bucket of "willing to court the end of the world for cheap political points".

I can live with imperfect to a point. But I do need someone who is roughly "on my side". Chalk it up to Obama teaching me to research my candidates much more carefully before committing. That all being said, I hope to hell I dig into Gabbard and come up clean-ish. I like the woman thoroughly so far.

#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.

I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,

up

3 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.

So, here we are again. Another election and another round of "imperfect" candidates...

What a bunch of delusional unicorn lovers we are to expect our candidates NOT to support the trillions of tax payer dollars going to corrupt war profiteers while the US war machine gleefully butchers hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.

If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.

I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.

I don’t see those as small things.

She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.

But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.

Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?

Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.

up

18 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.

So, here we are again. Another election and another round of "imperfect" candidates...

What a bunch of delusional unicorn lovers we are to expect our candidates NOT to support the trillions of tax payer dollars going to corrupt war profiteers while the US war machine gleefully butchers hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.

If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.

I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.

I don’t see those as small things.

She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.

But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.

Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?

Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.

Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”

It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”

This is not an anti war candidate.

That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.

Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”

It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”

This is not an anti war candidate.

That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.

She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.

up

11 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.

Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.

Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.

Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”

It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”

This is not an anti war candidate.

That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.

She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.

up

14 users have voted.

—

The public has been conditioned over time—in ways that would make Pavlov’s dawg seem like an in independent thinker

Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.

Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.

Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.

@snoopydawg
On the campaign trail. Of course, he says so much, it's like digging through dog poop to find the ring Fido ate.

Back when Ron Paul ran, I think it was his 2nd time but not sure, he said that our foreign policy makes us targets for terrorism. The bots on the debate stage, Robot Romney included, literally laughed out loud at him. The only thing they didn't do was point at him as they laughed and laughed.

Bot zombie voters and their "elected" politicians on both sides apparently feed on the blood of innocent civilians shed at the hands of US made terrorists, and our efforts to kill them.

Side note: I wonder if the spooks who recruit them inform them that they'll not only be funded and given fleets of Toyota trucks, but that they will also be military targets of the US and its allies. Surely not.

Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.

Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.

Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.

when he defended killer robots. Not to mention the PRESUMPTION that we can go anywhere in the world and kill whoever we don't like. Science fiction writers warned of the possibility of this monstrosity long ago, but not even they dreamed of "walking in a tactical way".

Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.

Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.

Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.

up

6 users have voted.

—

If I'm wrong, it's the first time I'm happy to be confused. -Don Van Vliet

Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”

It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”

This is not an anti war candidate.

That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.

I remember that underneath all the smokescreen there are actually bad people in the world. There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.

In my mind, the discussion of drone usage is misplaced. I'd rather have a discussion on what, exactly, constitutes a terrorist and under what process does the US or anyone else decide to attack on foreign soil to get one. If there'd been 5 highly targeted drone strikes over Obama's tenure, each one clearly nailing a terrorist training compound far away from civilian populations in a truly surgical operation with well documented reasons then I'd have thought drone strikes were awesome.

In other words, my issues aren't exactly with war or the weapons of war. My issues are with how our own government deludes us.

If you want the US to drop bombs from drones anywhere in the world because terrorists — that is pro war.

They call it the “war on terrorists” and it is used to justify American bombs dropping on people anywhere and everywhere they say are “terrorists”.

If you think Obama was antiwar, then so is Tulsi. But they both support ongoing war in the middle east. That’s not antiwar in my book.

up

3 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

I've made it pretty plain all along that I see ethical problems with "might makes right". That right there represents the entire nature of my problem with the notion that we must DOSOMETHING(tm) about those offensive bastards. In fact, the need to DOSOMETHING(tm) is exactly what defines a fanatic in my mind. It's what made the Crusades happen. It's what makes killing gays happen. "Why, look at that offensive bastard over there doing something I dislike. That's just gotta stop!"

I remember that underneath all the smokescreen there are actually bad people in the world. There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.

In my mind, the discussion of drone usage is misplaced. I'd rather have a discussion on what, exactly, constitutes a terrorist and under what process does the US or anyone else decide to attack on foreign soil to get one. If there'd been 5 highly targeted drone strikes over Obama's tenure, each one clearly nailing a terrorist training compound far away from civilian populations in a truly surgical operation with well documented reasons then I'd have thought drone strikes were awesome.

In other words, my issues aren't exactly with war or the weapons of war. My issues are with how our own government deludes us.

up

10 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

I've made it pretty plain all along that I see ethical problems with "might makes right". That right there represents the entire nature of my problem with the notion that we must DOSOMETHING(tm) about those offensive bastards. In fact, the need to DOSOMETHING(tm) is exactly what defines a fanatic in my mind. It's what made the Crusades happen. It's what makes killing gays happen. "Why, look at that offensive bastard over there doing something I dislike. That's just gotta stop!"

And nothing has changed since that. If you'll remember, I also said that under some appropriate set of conditions I'd consider "blowing the fuckers up" (or something like that).

In this response I said I'd like a discussion about when and how such things ought to be done. Personally, I think it needs some sort of [credible] international tribunal. In other words, I doubt I'd ever be comfortable with the US doing such a thing on it's own. If the US wants to do that, then it should just go ahead and declare war (you know, REALLY declare war). But to use the other end of the spectrum, if 99% of the nations on the planet agreed that it was appropriate, I'd tend to think so too.

I think we all know here, though, that the word "terrorist" means nothing when the US uses it and these drone strikes have little to do with terrorism.

I've made it pretty plain all along that I see ethical problems with "might makes right". That right there represents the entire nature of my problem with the notion that we must DOSOMETHING(tm) about those offensive bastards. In fact, the need to DOSOMETHING(tm) is exactly what defines a fanatic in my mind. It's what made the Crusades happen. It's what makes killing gays happen. "Why, look at that offensive bastard over there doing something I dislike. That's just gotta stop!"

up

1 user has voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

@Battle of Blair Mountain
Hardly anti-war. I'm sure there are other "program" names I am omitting but that one comes to mind immediately. Sure that program may have killed some actual enemies, but just how many innocents were also killed in the process?

@Battle of Blair Mountain@Battle of Blair Mountain
If you don't, you might want to reassess, it's been going on officially for over 17 years and is the real neverending war. Gabbard is certainly fully on board with the fake war OF terror, in fact, she's been out front in wrongly labeling the terrorist problem as radical islam, which is the excuse the neocons used to justify the war OF terror in the first place and why she's been a fav of Fox news.

#5.2.3.1.3#5.2.3.1.3 If you don't, you might want to reassess, it's been going on officially for over 17 years and is the real neverending war. Gabbard is certainly fully on board with the fake war OF terror, in fact, she's been out front in wrongly labeling the terrorist problem as radical islam, which is the excuse the neocons used to justify the war OF terror in the first place and why she's been a fav of Fox news.

Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”

It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”

This is not an anti war candidate.

That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.

Tapper elevated the Aban Alebed's ridiculous tweet to Trump asking for help. Of course the media pushed her on to Americans because who could resist a cute little girl spreading propaganda?

"Obviously Assad is responsible for thousands of deaths and millions being displaced....."
Uh, no. This is not what actually happened, dude. He's a tool for the MICC of course and after she told him the truth about the 'moderate Syrian rebels' he just moved on and asked her about her trip. She tells him how our moderate Syrian rebels kiddnapped, raped her and killed her father and he just said, "thank you for telling us your 'story."!! For gawd's sake it wasn't a story. I want people who support the wars to just think about what they would feel if this happened to their daughters and cities. That people don't see anything wrong with our troops occupying people's country is so beyond my comprehension. But that day will come eventually if just one country decides that they have had enough with our warmongering.

Gawd looking at the destruction of Aleppo. I could go on all night about this tragedy...

Tapper elevated the Aban Alebed's ridiculous tweet to Trump asking for help. Of course the media pushed her on to Americans because who could resist a cute little girl spreading propaganda?

"Obviously Assad is responsible for thousands of deaths and millions being displaced....."
Uh, no. This is not what actually happened, dude. He's a tool for the MICC of course and after she told him the truth about the 'moderate Syrian rebels' he just moved on and asked her about her trip. She tells him how our moderate Syrian rebels kiddnapped, raped her and killed her father and he just said, "thank you for telling us your 'story."!! For gawd's sake it wasn't a story. I want people who support the wars to just think about what they would feel if this happened to their daughters and cities. That people don't see anything wrong with our troops occupying people's country is so beyond my comprehension. But that day will come eventually if just one country decides that they have had enough with our warmongering.

Gawd looking at the destruction of Aleppo. I could go on all night about this tragedy...

Let's start with a big group of candidates instead of just two. Let's debate things for a few primaries and not have the contest over before it starts.
Let's put in a bunch of neoliberals and split the centrist vote, maybe keep them each below 15%.

@WoodsDweller
Creepy Joe may be the current favorite but others like Pocahontas and the Camel are going to jump in and muck it up for everyone. Forget about Cory Spartacus. If this gay bathroom assault proves to have legs, he's a cooked book.

My deepest hope is for the Evil Queen to get off her sick bed and throw herself into the battle--guaranteed death knell for Dem party.

I love(d) Bernie. Contributed to the limit for him. Went one of his rallies. Caucused with San Luis Obispo Dems to vote for his delegates to the DNC. Note the past tense. I cannot forgive his sheep dogging. His failure to at any time pursue an aggressive agenda against HRC, such as emails and private servers and cheating on debates. He sold out--he sold ME out. His domestic policies are great. His foreign policy is dubious. Basically I think he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the MIC, let alone Dem elitists. He will be run over like a snow ball on a city street if elected--which he won't be--even if he gets the nomination.

Tulsi putting herself into the picture is more likely consciousness raising for name recognition. Start now but hope not to win. All the real progressives gotta learn this: as long as the Dem establishment exists, there will NOT be a progressive in the WH--not Bernie, not Tulsi. They would rather hand the WH back to Trump if a progressive wins the nomination.

Let's start with a big group of candidates instead of just two. Let's debate things for a few primaries and not have the contest over before it starts.
Let's put in a bunch of neoliberals and split the centrist vote, maybe keep them each below 15%.

#7 Creepy Joe may be the current favorite but others like Pocahontas and the Camel are going to jump in and muck it up for everyone. Forget about Cory Spartacus. If this gay bathroom assault proves to have legs, he's a cooked book.

My deepest hope is for the Evil Queen to get off her sick bed and throw herself into the battle--guaranteed death knell for Dem party.

I love(d) Bernie. Contributed to the limit for him. Went one of his rallies. Caucused with San Luis Obispo Dems to vote for his delegates to the DNC. Note the past tense. I cannot forgive his sheep dogging. His failure to at any time pursue an aggressive agenda against HRC, such as emails and private servers and cheating on debates. He sold out--he sold ME out. His domestic policies are great. His foreign policy is dubious. Basically I think he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the MIC, let alone Dem elitists. He will be run over like a snow ball on a city street if elected--which he won't be--even if he gets the nomination.

Tulsi putting herself into the picture is more likely consciousness raising for name recognition. Start now but hope not to win. All the real progressives gotta learn this: as long as the Dem establishment exists, there will NOT be a progressive in the WH--not Bernie, not Tulsi. They would rather hand the WH back to Trump if a progressive wins the nomination.

up

2 users have voted.

—

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark....Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.” ― Ayn Rand

During a visit to the man's workplace, Booker's accuser says the Senator "pulled me into the restroom," and "put his left hand on my groin, over my jeans and began to rub," before pushing the man down on his knees for "what was clearly a move to have me perform oral sex on him." The man says he "pulled away quite violently" and told Booker he had to leave.

Early in her career, Gabbard took after her father. She opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After Honolulu Magazine emailed her father to ask about his former ties to a conservative Hare Krishna splinter group for a 2004 profile, it was Gabbard who replied angrily, accusing the magazine of “acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [her father’s opponent].” The same year, she used her platform as a state representative to testify against civil unions, calling the claim that they were different from same-sex marriage “dishonest, cowardly, and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” who had voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment 2 in 1998, empowering the legislature to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.

Gabbard has since done a 180, citing her military service in the Middle East as the impetus for her conversion to social liberalism.

Early in her career, Gabbard took after her father. She opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After Honolulu Magazine emailed her father to ask about his former ties to a conservative Hare Krishna splinter group for a 2004 profile, it was Gabbard who replied angrily, accusing the magazine of “acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [her father’s opponent].” The same year, she used her platform as a state representative to testify against civil unions, calling the claim that they were different from same-sex marriage “dishonest, cowardly, and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” who had voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment 2 in 1998, empowering the legislature to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.

Gabbard has since done a 180, citing her military service in the Middle East as the impetus for her conversion to social liberalism.

That's a good thing in my book. She has consistently spoke out for and same-sex rights and for abortion rights since she was in the military. She supported legislation for such as well. Voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, etc. She has become more progressive over time, not less.

The things that stand out to me are:

--Unlike Obama, her voting record generally defends her progressive stances on things
--She was willing to be anti-establishment during and after the 2016 elections. She attacked Hillary's minions constantly.
--She has consistently been on shows like Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, etc. unlike mainstream politicians.

Agreed that the Hindu nationalist thing is weird, but I have no direct knowledge of it, and frankly it seems pretty minor overall.

Early in her career, Gabbard took after her father. She opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After Honolulu Magazine emailed her father to ask about his former ties to a conservative Hare Krishna splinter group for a 2004 profile, it was Gabbard who replied angrily, accusing the magazine of “acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [her father’s opponent].” The same year, she used her platform as a state representative to testify against civil unions, calling the claim that they were different from same-sex marriage “dishonest, cowardly, and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” who had voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment 2 in 1998, empowering the legislature to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.

Gabbard has since done a 180, citing her military service in the Middle East as the impetus for her conversion to social liberalism.

That's a good thing in my book. She has consistently spoke out for and same-sex rights and for abortion rights since she was in the military. She supported legislation for such as well. Voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, etc. She has become more progressive over time, not less.

The things that stand out to me are:

--Unlike Obama, her voting record generally defends her progressive stances on things
--She was willing to be anti-establishment during and after the 2016 elections. She attacked Hillary's minions constantly.
--She has consistently been on shows like Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, etc. unlike mainstream politicians.

Agreed that the Hindu nationalist thing is weird, but I have no direct knowledge of it, and frankly it seems pretty minor overall.

Also, the hit pieces on the Intercept can't be divorced from Omidyar's history of supporting regime change. He donated millions to facilitate regime change in Ukraine. He also owns the Civil Beat in Hawaii that invariably slants the coverage about Tulsi.

Early in her career, Gabbard took after her father. She opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After Honolulu Magazine emailed her father to ask about his former ties to a conservative Hare Krishna splinter group for a 2004 profile, it was Gabbard who replied angrily, accusing the magazine of “acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [her father’s opponent].” The same year, she used her platform as a state representative to testify against civil unions, calling the claim that they were different from same-sex marriage “dishonest, cowardly, and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” who had voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment 2 in 1998, empowering the legislature to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.

Gabbard has since done a 180, citing her military service in the Middle East as the impetus for her conversion to social liberalism.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,”

So only homosexual extremists wanted to get all of the protections that marriage offered straight people? I'm not going to say what I want about this. But I'd like to know why she changed her thinking about this. And the other things that she used to be against and is now for. I will not vote ala carte for people anymore. It's the whole deal or no deal and if that makes me a purist so be it.

up

8 users have voted.

—

The public has been conditioned over time—in ways that would make Pavlov’s dawg seem like an in independent thinker

1. Many people do a philosophical 180 after a stint in the military. If she can explain that it's a positive.
2. Bernie doesn't run. (I consider that decided, or she would not run herself)
3. After getting blatantly cheated on Super Tuesday she withdraws from the Democrats and accepts the Green Party nomination.
4. Bernie campaigns for her. (if Bernie supports the Democrat the Republican wins and he goes down in history as the "man who killed democracy")
5. The Democrats run Biden, or Gillibrand, or Booker, or... (anyone except maybe Warren)
6. Trump does not decline to run for reelection. (if Trump doesn't run and the Republicans run someone the American people don't already loathe, they have a very good chance to pick up too many "anyone but" votes)

@doh1304
40+% of American voters are Trump idolators. Split the anti-Trump vote and he wins again.

1. Many people do a philosophical 180 after a stint in the military. If she can explain that it's a positive.
2. Bernie doesn't run. (I consider that decided, or she would not run herself)
3. After getting blatantly cheated on Super Tuesday she withdraws from the Democrats and accepts the Green Party nomination.
4. Bernie campaigns for her. (if Bernie supports the Democrat the Republican wins and he goes down in history as the "man who killed democracy")
5. The Democrats run Biden, or Gillibrand, or Booker, or... (anyone except maybe Warren)
6. Trump does not decline to run for reelection. (if Trump doesn't run and the Republicans run someone the American people don't already loathe, they have a very good chance to pick up too many "anyone but" votes)

@The Voice In the Wilderness
Historically 15% are that combination of racist right and christofascists that always vote Republican, 15% are Republicans who vote red regardless, and the last 10% are people who voted for Trump (and claim that they will vote for him again) because Hillary (and now the quisling Democrats) are really that bad. Bernie, and hopefully Tulsi, will get essentially all of that 10%. There is almost no state where Trump could win with only his solid 30%, and a similar analysis can be claimed for the corporate Democrat. Nearly everywhere Bernie (and presumably Tulsi) wins 35/32/28 The only way that the corpodems can split the vote enough (The so called "swing vote" is a myth) to win enough states to deny the progressive would be to run Warren. She could throw the election to the House, and probably result in a 3rd place Warren presidency.
Note: in a similar race, a recent mayoral race in Oakland, CA, rank choice allowed a third place (but clearly the least corrupt) candidate to win. The result was by most accounts a failure)

#11
40+% of American voters are Trump idolators. Split the anti-Trump vote and he wins again.

@doh1304
she did explain it. She said she saw the religious intolerance and realized it was wrong to force her religious beliefs on others. It was wrong for anyone to do that.
She didnt deny that personally, her Hindu beliefs are that homosexuality harms one spiritually and that she continues to have those beliefs. She doesnt believe she has the right to force those beliefs upon others, however.
Commendably American if you ask me.

1. Many people do a philosophical 180 after a stint in the military. If she can explain that it's a positive.
2. Bernie doesn't run. (I consider that decided, or she would not run herself)
3. After getting blatantly cheated on Super Tuesday she withdraws from the Democrats and accepts the Green Party nomination.
4. Bernie campaigns for her. (if Bernie supports the Democrat the Republican wins and he goes down in history as the "man who killed democracy")
5. The Democrats run Biden, or Gillibrand, or Booker, or... (anyone except maybe Warren)
6. Trump does not decline to run for reelection. (if Trump doesn't run and the Republicans run someone the American people don't already loathe, they have a very good chance to pick up too many "anyone but" votes)

@doh1304
Tulsi is young enough to run now, get her name out there, and run again after 2020.

1. Many people do a philosophical 180 after a stint in the military. If she can explain that it's a positive.
2. Bernie doesn't run. (I consider that decided, or she would not run herself)
3. After getting blatantly cheated on Super Tuesday she withdraws from the Democrats and accepts the Green Party nomination.
4. Bernie campaigns for her. (if Bernie supports the Democrat the Republican wins and he goes down in history as the "man who killed democracy")
5. The Democrats run Biden, or Gillibrand, or Booker, or... (anyone except maybe Warren)
6. Trump does not decline to run for reelection. (if Trump doesn't run and the Republicans run someone the American people don't already loathe, they have a very good chance to pick up too many "anyone but" votes)

@dfarrah
Saw it in an uber annoying video about 2019 predictions by past and current prophets. Cacey, Naustridamous, etc.

Or, the Last President. It's fantasy fiction, but some of the parallels are pretty cool. Character is Wilhelm something something von Troomp. He appoints Pence to his cabinet. Barron is his nickname. Mentioned that Troomp is reelected on the specific Tues Nov 3rd, that falls in 2020. It also said he'd return us to the gold standard, even though the Fed Reserve was not even a thing yet. Then there's the mention of the mobs outside the 5th Ave Hotel. (The annoying video commentators refer to the angry mobs protesting income inequality in the book as sounding a lot like antifa -- wrong! Pussy hats and OWS protesters are not the same, but they also say at another point in the video that we're moving back to the gold and silver standard now, and that communism is all around the world.)

Book mentioned at 9:12.

#11 Tulsi is young enough to run now, get her name out there, and run again after 2020.

But the mythos linking the congresswoman to the party’s rising left wing collapses over the critical question of how to handle the world beyond America’s shores. Like Sanders and Warren, Gabbard is acutely attuned to the left’s frustration with endless wars. What she’s offering, however, is a fatalist view starkly different from the optimistic global vision of progress they’ve been pushing into the national conversation.

On domestic matters, Gabbard is in line with her counterparts: She supports a $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care, and she says Democrats need to do more to resist money from corporations and billionaires. Yet on foreign policy, she’s gone rogue, tying the anti-intervention rhetoric adopted by nearly every Democrat (and Republicans like President Donald Trump) to embracing global leaders who flout international human rights standards and complain of persecution by American empire.

Gabbard’s language is that of the old left, holding up the U.S. government as obsessed with unwisely projecting its influence, often for the sake of monied interests ― and, she asserts, in secretive risky ways ― while neglecting its own people at home. It’s a mode that echoes the kind of anti-elite talk that Trump built his campaign around while he lied about his past position on the invasion of Iraq. (Why have politicians of both parties gotten Americans trapped in these far-away places?)

And it connects seamlessly to another Trump-style view: a deep skepticism of foreigners, particularly Muslims. Gabbard has voted to make it harder for refugees from Iraq and Syria to enter the U.S., courted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite his links to anti-Muslim violence that killed hundreds, and spent years as a Fox News darling for her willingness to claim President Barack Obama was making Americans less safe by supporting Arab rebels in Syria and not using the phrase “radical Islam.” (Obama aides and many experts warn that language risks implying a problem inherent in a religion followed by 1.6 billion people; Gabbard and Trump argue the language is essential to explain the rise of groups like the Islamic State.)

up

5 users have voted.

—

The public has been conditioned over time—in ways that would make Pavlov’s dawg seem like an in independent thinker

But the mythos linking the congresswoman to the party’s rising left wing collapses over the critical question of how to handle the world beyond America’s shores. Like Sanders and Warren, Gabbard is acutely attuned to the left’s frustration with endless wars. What she’s offering, however, is a fatalist view starkly different from the optimistic global vision of progress they’ve been pushing into the national conversation.

On domestic matters, Gabbard is in line with her counterparts: She supports a $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care, and she says Democrats need to do more to resist money from corporations and billionaires. Yet on foreign policy, she’s gone rogue, tying the anti-intervention rhetoric adopted by nearly every Democrat (and Republicans like President Donald Trump) to embracing global leaders who flout international human rights standards and complain of persecution by American empire.

Gabbard’s language is that of the old left, holding up the U.S. government as obsessed with unwisely projecting its influence, often for the sake of monied interests ― and, she asserts, in secretive risky ways ― while neglecting its own people at home. It’s a mode that echoes the kind of anti-elite talk that Trump built his campaign around while he lied about his past position on the invasion of Iraq. (Why have politicians of both parties gotten Americans trapped in these far-away places?)

And it connects seamlessly to another Trump-style view: a deep skepticism of foreigners, particularly Muslims. Gabbard has voted to make it harder for refugees from Iraq and Syria to enter the U.S., courted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite his links to anti-Muslim violence that killed hundreds, and spent years as a Fox News darling for her willingness to claim President Barack Obama was making Americans less safe by supporting Arab rebels in Syria and not using the phrase “radical Islam.” (Obama aides and many experts warn that language risks implying a problem inherent in a religion followed by 1.6 billion people; Gabbard and Trump argue the language is essential to explain the rise of groups like the Islamic State.)

up

13 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

But the mythos linking the congresswoman to the party’s rising left wing collapses over the critical question of how to handle the world beyond America’s shores. Like Sanders and Warren, Gabbard is acutely attuned to the left’s frustration with endless wars. What she’s offering, however, is a fatalist view starkly different from the optimistic global vision of progress they’ve been pushing into the national conversation.

On domestic matters, Gabbard is in line with her counterparts: She supports a $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care, and she says Democrats need to do more to resist money from corporations and billionaires. Yet on foreign policy, she’s gone rogue, tying the anti-intervention rhetoric adopted by nearly every Democrat (and Republicans like President Donald Trump) to embracing global leaders who flout international human rights standards and complain of persecution by American empire.

Gabbard’s language is that of the old left, holding up the U.S. government as obsessed with unwisely projecting its influence, often for the sake of monied interests ― and, she asserts, in secretive risky ways ― while neglecting its own people at home. It’s a mode that echoes the kind of anti-elite talk that Trump built his campaign around while he lied about his past position on the invasion of Iraq. (Why have politicians of both parties gotten Americans trapped in these far-away places?)

And it connects seamlessly to another Trump-style view: a deep skepticism of foreigners, particularly Muslims. Gabbard has voted to make it harder for refugees from Iraq and Syria to enter the U.S., courted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite his links to anti-Muslim violence that killed hundreds, and spent years as a Fox News darling for her willingness to claim President Barack Obama was making Americans less safe by supporting Arab rebels in Syria and not using the phrase “radical Islam.” (Obama aides and many experts warn that language risks implying a problem inherent in a religion followed by 1.6 billion people; Gabbard and Trump argue the language is essential to explain the rise of groups like the Islamic State.)

...re: 2020 (stating the obvious); and, much of it is about positioning for the v.p. slot. I will say, practically speaking, as far as Tulsi Gabbard is concerned, I would NOT underestimate her ability to focus upon the U.S. south-central/southeast Asian (Indian) community, as far as fundraising and overall support is concerned. The faction has become a very, very formidable political power in certain states, not the least of which being places like NY and NJ. For instance, meet the new NJ Attorney General...

...demilitarizing US foreign policy should be among the top items on the agenda of the new Congress. Just as we are witnessing a rising movement for a visionary Green New Deal, so, too, the time has come for a New Peace Deal that repudiates endless war and the threat of nuclear war which, along with catastrophic climate change, poses an existential threat to our planet.

I like Bernie. I thought his response to T-rump's address was excellent. But no politician admits to the deep state control creating war to sell weapons. It is the basis of our economy along with the fuel to drive the military machine. So on all fronts I think it is too little too late...perhaps sunrise and extinction rebellion can swing the system.

up

8 users have voted.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Bernie is still my first choice, as he's brought climate change urgency, medicare for all, tuition mitigation, $15 minimum wage, jobs, and infrastructure into the mainstream, as well as inspired people like AOZ to run in the first place, and has been tireless since 2016 in pushing these issues into the foreground, from the fringe.

RE: His sheepherding, I may be mistaken, or my sources may, but I can remember reading in many places circa 2016 that one of the many hoops the Dims made Bernie jump through when he ran as a dim was that he would support the dim nominee, 'whoever' that might be (as if there were any question, with two hands on the scale for the Klinton Kreature.)

As soon as I heard about Tulsi's announcement yesterday, I went to TOP, to observe the pitchforks. They didn't waste any time! While one of her oft-mentioned sins was meeting Assad (yes: Dialogue: BAD, Endless War, GOOD! Remember when people calling themselves left burned their draft cards??? How quaint!) we all know the Unpardonable Sin was calling out HER and the DNC's corruption by resigning from that cesspool of snakes aka the DNC, and supporting Bernie (to the point she nominated him for Pres at the Dim's convention.) Their vitriol and garbage did not disappoint! Funny how quickly they throw their fucking sacred Identity Politics out the window when it suits them-- Here is a WOMAN, and (as far as white America is concerned) a WOMAN OF COLOR, but-- oopsie! Under the bus she goes! She could be female, a POC, a lesbian, other-abled, and any other identity group you could name, but- oppose the coronation? AWAY WITH YOU! lol On the other hand, I remember when the Camel (Kamela) was first being talked about for 2020, and someone on TOP criticized her for, oh, any one of her 10,000 Neolib ways. The flying monkeys gathered, and someone actually wrote, and this was upvoted 10,000 times, "If you're criticizing Kamela, the problem is YOU!" Again, they never disappoint. So I say, Bernie-Tulsi 2020, as I can't think of a pairing better suited to make those monsters' heads explode at TOP-- they certainly must be doing something right to have earned that vitriol and knee-jerk reaction. I think Warren is their Trojan Horse to keep Bernie out, or split the progressive vote-- would much rather she stay in the senate, or be appointed head of Treasury/Banking if a progressive gets in. Yeah, don't like Bernie on Israel at all, but he does oppose anti-BDS: He tweeted just last week: "It’s absurd that the first bill during the shutdown is legislation which punishes Americans who exercise their constitutional right to engage in political activity. Democrats must block consideration of any bills that don’t reopen the government. Let's get our priorities right." He and Feinstein (ugh) a few eeks back sent a letter to Senate leaders (McConnell (R: Hell, ugh) and Schumer (D: Tel Aviv) (double ugh))opposing the legislation: “While we do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctons (BDS) Movement, we remain resolved to our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express their views peacefully without fear of actual punishment by the government.” So there's that....Booker, on the other hand, is one of the sponsors of the bill, as is Rep. Kennedy. FOR SHAME!!!!! My own feeling is that the bill, insidious, repulsive, and traitorous as it is, is essentially window-dressing (meaning its supporters want the AIPAC $ to keep coming, and for fear of being primaried) as two federal courts have already struck it down as being unconstitutional (yea think?). But still, that it's come this close tells you all you need to know about which country is actually interfering in our 'democracy....'

Democrats must block consideration of any bills that don’t reopen the government.

I'll bet he supports the bill next time it comes up, if it doesn't pass unanimously this time. He voted with everyone else (unanimous vote I believe) to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Why would he defy his masters on this one?

I do like the fact that TOP heads are exploding over anything. Shills gotta shill lol.

Bernie is still my first choice, as he's brought climate change urgency, medicare for all, tuition mitigation, $15 minimum wage, jobs, and infrastructure into the mainstream, as well as inspired people like AOZ to run in the first place, and has been tireless since 2016 in pushing these issues into the foreground, from the fringe.

RE: His sheepherding, I may be mistaken, or my sources may, but I can remember reading in many places circa 2016 that one of the many hoops the Dims made Bernie jump through when he ran as a dim was that he would support the dim nominee, 'whoever' that might be (as if there were any question, with two hands on the scale for the Klinton Kreature.)

As soon as I heard about Tulsi's announcement yesterday, I went to TOP, to observe the pitchforks. They didn't waste any time! While one of her oft-mentioned sins was meeting Assad (yes: Dialogue: BAD, Endless War, GOOD! Remember when people calling themselves left burned their draft cards??? How quaint!) we all know the Unpardonable Sin was calling out HER and the DNC's corruption by resigning from that cesspool of snakes aka the DNC, and supporting Bernie (to the point she nominated him for Pres at the Dim's convention.) Their vitriol and garbage did not disappoint! Funny how quickly they throw their fucking sacred Identity Politics out the window when it suits them-- Here is a WOMAN, and (as far as white America is concerned) a WOMAN OF COLOR, but-- oopsie! Under the bus she goes! She could be female, a POC, a lesbian, other-abled, and any other identity group you could name, but- oppose the coronation? AWAY WITH YOU! lol On the other hand, I remember when the Camel (Kamela) was first being talked about for 2020, and someone on TOP criticized her for, oh, any one of her 10,000 Neolib ways. The flying monkeys gathered, and someone actually wrote, and this was upvoted 10,000 times, "If you're criticizing Kamela, the problem is YOU!" Again, they never disappoint. So I say, Bernie-Tulsi 2020, as I can't think of a pairing better suited to make those monsters' heads explode at TOP-- they certainly must be doing something right to have earned that vitriol and knee-jerk reaction. I think Warren is their Trojan Horse to keep Bernie out, or split the progressive vote-- would much rather she stay in the senate, or be appointed head of Treasury/Banking if a progressive gets in. Yeah, don't like Bernie on Israel at all, but he does oppose anti-BDS: He tweeted just last week: "It’s absurd that the first bill during the shutdown is legislation which punishes Americans who exercise their constitutional right to engage in political activity. Democrats must block consideration of any bills that don’t reopen the government. Let's get our priorities right." He and Feinstein (ugh) a few eeks back sent a letter to Senate leaders (McConnell (R: Hell, ugh) and Schumer (D: Tel Aviv) (double ugh))opposing the legislation: “While we do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctons (BDS) Movement, we remain resolved to our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express their views peacefully without fear of actual punishment by the government.” So there's that....Booker, on the other hand, is one of the sponsors of the bill, as is Rep. Kennedy. FOR SHAME!!!!! My own feeling is that the bill, insidious, repulsive, and traitorous as it is, is essentially window-dressing (meaning its supporters want the AIPAC $ to keep coming, and for fear of being primaried) as two federal courts have already struck it down as being unconstitutional (yea think?). But still, that it's come this close tells you all you need to know about which country is actually interfering in our 'democracy....'

let me ask you, anyone who's any good, some people think your policy positions are way out on the fringe of lunatic thinking. What would you say to them that might convince them you're not a dangerous lunatic?